Printable View
I dont understand the anger here. The library is their to provide access to information & literature for the surrounding local community - what difference does it possibly make to you if people decide to use their leisure time reading Harry Potter?Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
Nothing, I merely was pointing out the fluctuation in popularity and readership between book 1 and two, showing how readers stopped reading Potter as obsessively, as imagined, by showing the drastic difference in number of loans and copies of the last book than the first. The Library should stock Potter, I have no qualms about it, I was just trying to show that one the book was read, it was read, and left. Whereas other books on the other hand will continue to be read, though the so called Potter generation seems to be over, being that new readers aren't flocking in the same numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
The authors popularity depends on how many people at the current time are reading/discussing their work. I'm sure now, that the advertisement, and the mystery are over, academics will go on to completely ignoring the work, instead of half ignoring it, and students and readers will cease to read the books.
That sounds good. Well, despite the Potter fad finally over, we still do have to prove that a few of those people who didn't read mcuh must have gone on to better works.
Well that certainly is a lot of copies of the book JBI. We are lucky if we get ten copies of a new book here no matter who the author is
This isn't one library - it's the entire Toronto library system which caters to millions of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
Well you could try get a dutch one online but as for Latin, they sell them in one of the gift shops up by Hadrians Wall. My Friends Hein and Ine bought a couple of copies for their nieces who where currently studying latin in school back in belgium. They hoped by reading the book in Latin, it would incourage and help them to learn and progress with the language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
I should really buy it in Irish, to refresh my memory. Either that or Artemis Fowl.
I dont trust statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
Nor wiki for that matter.(well most of the time)
Well Niamh, you should never trust Wiki 100% as we all know that it is all put up by people around the world, no matter how truthful they may be. Much research on their is not done very well, if not at all.
SO... just as an add-on, cite and check your sources my friends. But I believe JBI's is fairly close to right, if not spot-on.:D
A small matter completely different from this; I'm glad I've found a site with truly literate and intelligent people.
I can never understand people who wont try the best sellers or chicklit because (they're) rubbish...
Perhaps... "because they are rubbish"?
there are no new stories the only real difference I have ever been able to see is that age the setting and the language and I suppose the cultural context. But a romance about 2 people who misunderstand each other is still a romance about 2 people who misunderstand each other whether it was written by Austen and has a grave black and gold leather cover or was written by Sandra Brown and has a jazzy bright pink cover with a couple falling all over each other.
And there's no difference between a painterly painting of a rural landscape by Monet and the same by Thomas Kinkade? Perhaps... just perhaps, now... there is more to literature than the story.;)
Sure there may be some inconsistent parts or weak plots, but if we read a lot of any specific author's works (especially ones with recurring characters) we will find the same mistakes. Just look at Conan Doyle. As for its place in history, I can't imagine it becoming a great classic. It will probably fall into the same place as Madeleine L'engle's A Wrinkle in Time, great readable stories, but not The Count of Monte Cristo. Let's not over analyze this whole thing.
I will agree that some of the best classics have their flaws. Cervantes' poetry added to Don Quixote in not even mediocre... it is just plain awful. But this flaw is more than compensated for by strengths in other areas. The Harry Potter novels are simply mediocre all around. There are no aspects of phenomenal brilliance that in any way make me think it will survive as anything more than an example of a cultural phenomena... not unlike Jonathan Livingston Seagull or Peyton Place. Of course I could be wrong... they may survive as a minor "classic" such as the works of Arthur Conan Doyle or Alexandre Dumas... who in reality is far closer to the sort of phenomena represented by Rowling than he is to a true "classic". Hell, he didn't even write most of his own books, but rather farmed out plots to ghostwriters... some of whom were far greater writers than himself (such as Gerard de Nerval.
Hmmm, except I know people who still read Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Also, we're still reading Dumas too. It seems to me the central question is whether we will still be reading Potter 30 years from now, a 100 years from now, 200, etc. I am not saying it will keep up the same numbers, but will it still maintain a steady stream of readers?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Even more interesting to this question might be not just to focus on children or the general adult reader, but will fantasy readers still be reading Potter alongside the likes of Tolkien 40 years from now?
I don't know how many are reading Dumas - most people I know who are fans read a 400 page Count of Monte Cristo, and lets face it, the book was not 400 pages.
Ah. Well JBI, as I'm glad to state, I and a few of my freinds read the Oxford edition of The Count of Monte Cristo. Which is around 1200 pages.
I still read Dumas, the first book of 3 Mouskeeters is a damn fine book, with all flaws of Dumas, but a capacity to build the action and characters (not the mention the good sense of being humourous). Lets face it, if the best-sellers writers today had the same capacity of Dumas (and his ghosts) to organize a product, it would be considerable harder to attack the level of the industry. They just do not. Dumas I think (alongside with guys like Stoker, Doyle, Le Fanu,etc) the limit of what will be immortal and what is not. I do not think HP got near there, and that is the problem: even enterteiment can be better. (Even if I think HP is even a little better than a few other popular writers).
Hmm, you bring interesting points J. But, can you honestly say that Dumas would be able to adapt into this modern era? I'm not criticizing you, but maybe if he could adapt, would he still have as an adept Literary concept as he had before? I think this really raises a few questions, such as if he would be able to adapt and be able to keep things as funny and interesting as he had wanted?
Count me down for that. I read Jonathan Livingston Seagull, The Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, and The Catcher in the Rye the summer of my sixteenth year. JLS was a decent book and I still think of it from time to time, but it cannot stand with the rest of that company. Having recently reread some of the Three Musketeers, I am confident to proclaim it phenomenal, one of our very best books. StLukes and JBI have some misplaced notion that in order to be good a book shouldn't appeal to anybody or have any action. All they love are Jane Austen and James Joyce the king and heiress apparent of namby pamby fancy pants effeminate letters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
There's something to the Harry Potter books. The language, diction, philosophy, and construction are solid but not impressive on their own; but that's not a negative with the audience which reads these books. As Drkshadow03 mentions in his blog, genre fiction often subjugates language to action and ideas whereas the opposite applies to belles lettres. I can see something in the Potter series. It is something like the appeal that the Wheel of Time series has for men of my generation. But like I said, neither is really my thing and I think Dumas, ghostwritten or not, is still better than either.
So... Your supposing that JBI does not know what he's talking about. Hmm... this is a unique situation, seeing as you yourself seem to be a little lost. Let's see if I can help.
Alright, first let's take Dumas. As you said, he is one of the world's most renowned writers. Naturally, the three Muskateers is still a wide and unsurpased book filled with adventure, comedy, and full right down to existence. Dumas is creative, intelligent, and known as a world ranked writer.
Next, there is Rowling, a woman who is clearly not a Feminist( which I have nothing against) as she disguised herself to sell a book of mediocre level and had ideas already been done. I fail to see where no character developement and uniqueness should not also be characteristics in a good book? She filled page upon page with things that do not even influence or make a change into the books. As JBI had earlier written, the first three were fillers, and the last four didn't catch to the main scheme until the last 100 pages of each book. There's also the fact that even though she kept the book pg-7, she should have raised herself beyond that limit. She should have maybe brought in a little gayness/lesbianish type ideas, besides telling people the headmaster was gay in her own little conference. That completely depletes the importance of half of Dumbledors actions in the first few books.
Sadly, as I will conclude, Rowling is not a structured writer, and could not keep basic facts straight and developement to surpass her character's merits. You can never place Rowling with any classics writer. Ever.:flare:
I believe that JBI clearly knows what he's talking about, and has very good taste and knowledge in Lit. yet sadly that is all I can add unless I want to sounds as if I'm all over him. Mortalterror, I command you for your insubordination for this topic.
I do not think JBI or St have this concept that a good book cannt appeal to masses, but the other round, that just because it appeal to masses - or it is a fashion - it is good. I have seen them talking about Dickens and Dickens was a writer for masses but he would wipe the floor with writers like Dan Brown who can not even lost his way with actions scenes, much less lead an entire book split between two different cities.
It is not being popular or not that make me Defend some cannonical status for Dumas. It is his capacity to provide continuous reading, to have impact on literature (and other arts), to have expressions and characters reckonized and used by everyone else and all this Dumas achived. If he had done this while having only 100 readers during 200 years it would be as worth as having 100 millions in 200 years.
Well, Da Vinci today would not be him, imagine Dumas. Altough a dude who can pull up adventures with perfection like Dumas would rule in Hollywood, in fact he seems to have settled down every rule of what a blockbuster would be. I dunno why Hollywood still thinks they must change him... Now, Imagine Melville writing today... maybe in his blog...Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
Oh! the bitter frustrations of a frustrated plebe!Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Your first sentence is really just an plebeian's rhetoric.
The second sentence is really just a frustrated plebeian's rhetoric.
What are you even doing in a literature forum if you have such opinions? You don't like literature, you like stories... go watch a movie, go play a video game if it's a story you want.
Why read a story for plot? What is the purpose of that? The plot cannot sustain itself alone. The plot is a premise, not a book. Action is only interesting because of the motives behind it, not because of the action itself. In terms of plot, there is essentially no originality anywhere, as plots seem to fall into two categories, as Frye tells us, Comic and Tragic. Everything else is the way it is handled, and the way other devices play to achieve the end. Not the Plot. The Plot is backdrop for the real story.
Even in the most basic examples of literature and storytelling we see the plot as the background. The plot in a fairy tale, for instance, is a means of bringing about the moral. The plot in an epic poem, for instance, is the means of expressing themes, particularly idealistic ones that are relevant to the culture producing the epic.
A book that can only be read once is not a very good book, and plot rarely deserves a second read, if not for the other elements at play within the work. I can't reread a completely plot driven work, because knowing what happens deeply lowers my appreciation of such works. I can, however, reread, for instance, Alice Munro's Short stories, while enjoying them more on the second reread. That is what, and how literature should function. If it's only good once, it can hardly be that good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Well said. I'd add but, you pretty much summed up my giant post I was about to make...:bawling:
Sir, your effective use of the smiley feature unmans me. I am humbled and must change my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
Wow. You're right. I don't like literature. I don't know anything about it. That's a load off. I think I'll go play some video games. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
StLukes and JBI have some misplaced notion that in order to be good a book shouldn't appeal to anybody or have any action. All they love are Jane Austen and James Joyce the king and heiress apparent of namby pamby fancy pants effeminate letters.
Ah yes... we are but effeminate aesthetes... while you, undoubtedly, speak from that masculine strain of thought that embraces the machismo of Hemingway and Charles Bukowski and Joe the Plumber, no doubt. Even that manly Roman avatar... (but why not Caracalla?) Combine it all with a feigned preference for the tastes of the "common mensch" (in spite of your obvious rather "elite" education and taste in reading) and it creates a marvelous illusion... the intellectual who is also down with the people... although perhaps a bit unsettled in his own manhood.:D
Well, I'd just like to tell you, Mortal, that it is quite ridiculous to just come out and try to stab someone like that. You hadn't made any comments, or said anything in this forum, and you come out and just say there ideas are ridiculous? It truly raises some questions mate. You should probably apologize, and back up your statements for them better.
Never diss the smilies:flare::flare::flare::flare::flare::flare:: bawling:
All right, before this goes on to petty namecalling, lets just have a bit of a re-cap, and a summing up of things.
A) can we agree that Rowling's prose is far from perfect, and is not stellar, or spectacular, and perhaps not even good?
b) can we agree that the last 4 or so books are not geared towards kids, but towards young adults, and perhaps adults, given their bloody content, and their darker, and more violent nature, thereby outing them from the genre.
c) Can we agree that the most acclaimed points in Rowling's work seem to be her plot, setting, and magic?
d) Can we agree that the books are Christian in moral focus, especially given the ending of the 7th book, which is purely out of the Bible, without much possible dispute.
e) can we also agree that fashion, advertisement, and word-of-mouth marketing can contribute to large amount of scales, regardless of the quality of a work
f) That a book's contemporary popularity is no real judge of its merit, being that there were as many books that were popular in their day and went on to be enduring, and popular in the future, and as many books that got bad receptions in the beginning, and then became popular later.
You know me too well. I tried a picture of Caracalla first, but the detail of the statue didn't show up at that resolution. It was all dark and pixelated. Plus, it didn't fit the color scheme of my page.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
JBI, i can agree with A,B,C,D,E, and partly F. The book must have have been decently well, no matter how good or bad it was written, to gain so much attention and popularity.
Plus, it didn't fit the color scheme of my page.
So... you are an aesthete after all? A secret volume of La Bas hidden away somewhere?:D
I beg to differ, see the Da Vinci code, and anything else by that author. It essentially proves the theory that marketing and sensationalism can sell anything. In Angels and Demons, for instance, I hear Brown uses a literal Deus Ex Machina.Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
I also partly disagree with F, but because popularity at any given momment of time, past, present, future is no indicative of anything at all. Picking a single momment of time makes no sense ,it is a form of relativism.
As the other part, Glory, today you have mechanisms of marketing and commerce that will give enough contribution to sell a product for what it pretends to be (Da Vince code is awful, only the polemic factor added sales, The Alchemist is utter crap, only the self-help discourse saved it. As Rowling I think it was an efficient and easy to grasp product with magic), so I can not say it is a matter of quality.
Although i find Dumas swashbukling tales entertaining, he is not a great writer in my eye. Three Musketeers is all plot driven. Action and no emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
You must remember it was not her idea, but the idea of her publishers. If she had down right refused, they may have refused to publish on the grounds that it might not make enough money for tehm to bother if it only dragged in one side of the market instead of the other. It was also the publisher who decided on childrens and adult editions. They are the ones that know the market and take the risks, not the author.Quote:
Next, there is Rowling, a woman who is clearly not a Feminist( which I have nothing against) as she disguised herself to sell a book of mediocre level and had ideas already been done.
Unfortunately the way modern writing is, either an author is plot or character. They focus on one or the other. I was told this when in a discussion with an author only recently. And she was right. In my opinion they should have a bit of both. but there is a lot of drivel on hte shelves that are just purely one or the other.Quote:
I fail to see where no character developement and uniqueness should not also be characteristics in a good book? She filled page upon page with things that do not even influence or make a change into the books. As JBI had earlier written, the first three were fillers, and the last four didn't catch to the main scheme until the last 100 pages of each book. There's also the fact that even though she kept the book pg-7, she should have raised herself beyond that limit. She should have maybe brought in a little gayness/lesbianish type ideas, besides telling people the headmaster was gay in her own little conference. That completely depletes the importance of half of Dumbledors actions in the first few books.
Personally i enjoy the potter series. It doesnt bother me that some of the characters are underdeveloped. But its the main reason i love the Aremis Fowl books more.
When i read over manuscripts for a publishing house, one of hte first things i look at is structure. If there is no stucture there is no book. J.K.Rowling is a structured author.Quote:
Sadly, as I will conclude, Rowling is not a structured writer, and could not keep basic facts straight and developement to surpass her character's merits. You can never place Rowling with any classics writer. Ever.:flare:
Quote:
I believe that JBI clearly knows what he's talking about, and has very good taste and knowledge in Lit. yet sadly that is all I can add unless I want to sounds as if I'm all over him. Mortalterror, I command you for your insubordination for this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
Okay now this is where i become a Mod.
Under no circumstances are we to discuss the poster and not the post. If you do not agree with what they have written, disagree with the post, do not jab at the poster.
We are here to discuss Harry Potter NOT each other.
If personal jabs continue, this thread will be close.
Okay :)
Not really, considering he didn't write his books by himself. You don't go looking for style in him, but as you said, for adventure, comedy, action. Where that is lacking (I'm thinking about the second sequel to the Three Musketeers), he's not a success as an author. So I think he compares well with Rowlings: they boh have a lot of imagination, and that's quite wonderful.Quote:
Alright, first let's take Dumas. As you said, he is one of the world's most renowned writers. Naturally, the three Muskateers is still a wide and unsurpased book filled with adventure, comedy, and full right down to existence. Dumas is creative, intelligent, and known as a world ranked writer.
Why not accept that some authors have more imagination than they have a gift for writing, and for others it's the contrary? John Irving also comes to mind, even though he's not a writer for children: lots of imagination (although a bit staler in his latest books) but not a very talented writer when it comes to style...Dan Brown also comes in that category: no style whatsoever (his is pretty awful, even, much worse than Rowlings') but he does possess a certain amount of creativity.
I think we read for several reasons, and therefore there have to be several types of books (and some great books that satisfy all our needs). Harry Potter is enjoyed by people who like delving into an imaginary world, and being "comforted" because it becomes a familiar place to them (since it's a series). Umberto Eco wrote that detective fiction could be appreciated for this reason as well: the plot is always roughly the same, therefore it's reassuring in a way.
Other books don't reassure us, and I suppose books without plot least of all, because we don't know where they're going. I don't know if any of you here have read Julien Gracq, who's considered as one of the greatest French authors of the twentieth century - Le rivage des Syrtes, for instance, has no discernable plot, and its greatness rests on style (beautiful writing!) and atmosphere.
The literary intelligentsia tend to consider novels of the second type as superior to novels of the first type - maybe because the first type doesn't need them to explain much! :D
I wonder, also, whether this difference isn't undercut by the one between what Barthes called the scripterly and the writerly, hum...
Dumas, admittedly, made use of ghostwriters but it has to be noted that he did have the last word, added details and also wrote the dialogues and the last chapters in his books. Of course, Dumas saw writing as a kind of industry rather than a kind of art, but it doesn't really take anything away from his stories. Indeed the sequel of The Tree Musketeers is flat, but it is still moving, funny and passionate in places. The plot itself was largely based upon the same principle as the original musketeer book, which was a mistake. However the Vicomte is better, it is a shame that they didn't implicate the musketeers more... I don't agree that he didn't have anything apart from adventure, comedy and action. Monte Cristo has none of that (or very small parts of that) and is still very profound if you think about it.Quote:
Not really, considering he didn't write his books by himself. You don't go looking for style in him, but as you said, for adventure, comedy, action. Where that is lacking (I'm thinking about the second sequel to the Three Musketeers), he's not a success as an author. So I think he compares well with Rowlings: they boh have a lot of imagination, and that's quite wonderful.
What you say about style is not totally true. His 'works' are intertextually not very interesting because he doesn't make references, but in French schools he is read for his superior French. So maybe, there is nothing special about him in English, but he is certainly very stylish in French.
For me there are two kinds of books: the ones with a good plot that are read because of that and the ones that you read for the language/ideas/philosophy alone, regardless the plot. The one kind shouldn't be superior to the other, but I think that mere plot-books have a lot to prove.
Also, this is not true. Rowling is not that imaginative. She basically only use and abuse of the old plot (choosen one that always solve everything) and take everything in HP from other sources. She does not add anything. Dan Brown much less. Everything he wrote was copied from other sources.
Dumas was something else. His characters are more living even if completely stereotypicals such as Milady. But Milady is the basical fatal blondie that XX copied so much. The swashbuckling adventures rules are refined under his ideas and command. He was not only more creative (Not just a repetition in a new order like the others cited),but he also have more timing (even with the need to write long descriptions and dialogues to fill more pages for money) and this shows his narrative capacity while manipulating time x space than most writers today. Even if nowhere a Victor Hugo, he is not a Dan Brown, by large.
(Maybe this part of the discussion can be split in another thread, after all, there is no room for those who just like HP to post here anymore)
I read his works in French. :pQuote:
What you say about style is not totally true. His 'works' are intertextually not very interesting because he doesn't make references, but in French schools he is read for his superior French. So maybe, there is nothing special about him in English, but he is certainly very stylish in French.
Yes, his French is beautiful, but it's the language of a specific era. Most of the books that have survived from that time are written in beautiful language, I think, no? And his style, I found, is nothing to write home about - nor are his thoughts in general, which is why I don't consider him to be a writer for adults, even though I loved him as a child.
JBI.. i am a teenager and i enjoy these books. I have read them all at least three times. And when i read these books, i read them because i like fantasy or anything like that. why would i care if they talk about masturbation or sexual whatever? and at the beggining of this post you compare them to SHAKESPEARE? These books sell on the Childrens Racks at barnes and noble. shakespeare is suposed to be a little bit more deep. and if these books are so horrible, why do so many people like them.? obviously there is something that catches all those people's eye, or is just the fact that she pretends to be a male author that makes everyone buy it?
Dumas is an exceptional author simply because he was a master of pace. Dumas makes a book which would normally be considered epic due to its length feel like a breeze. There's no taking that away from him, and I have yet to find an author who has come close to matching the sheer thrill of The Count of Monte Cristo.
That said, on an intellectual level, TCoMC is basically Batman circa 1800. What we're talking about here is the classic divide regarding literature: is it about entertainment or intellect? Some readers want books to always challenge them intellectually, some just want them to entertain, and some want a fairly even dose of both.
To me, both is best. I love Catch 22 because of its scatter gun humour and madness but I also love it because some of the ideas are actually worth thinking about. But I also love Dumas, because despite his comic book characters, he is a pleasure to read- if something is entertaining on a level like that, I don't mind a lack of 'intellectual weight'.
Thank you for taking the time to punctuate your point, but the fact remains that young readers will read essentially anything. I know - my parents fed me lots of crappy books. Either way though, the clock is ticking for Potter, - Twilight already is the new In, and sooner or later another thing will replace that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cundiff11
Either way though, if a book's excuse for being good is that it is rubbish, I find that rather problematic. In the end, it is the readers themselves who are going to be ripped off, not me, as I have read my fix of good books.
Lets be honest - I am, and I am trying to remain modest, somewhat of a strong reader - I have read a lot, worked hard, developed the skills, and can read at a proficient level. But what of the others who cannot? What happens if someone only reads Harry Potter, and isn't allowed to grow? As you've put it, you have read the series 3 times, meaning you have read 21 books, averaging around, I think, 400 or so pages each? Meaning, you could have read 21 great works, or 84 poetry books in the same time, but you didn't.
Now, of course you have stumbled to this site, so your interest in literature is not ending there, but what of the kid who only knows Harry Potter? Where do people go from there, to Dan Brown, or where? Do they go anywhere, or just head back to video games and T.V., which statistics show is happening.
I sound like a snob, but in truth, I didn't really start reading so insistingly until I was about 14 or 15. My parents never read to me, and I only got cash for birthday presents, which I usually deposited in the bank. I think th ebulk of my spare time was taken up sleeping (13 or so hours a day), and the rest cooking and eating. The fact that I even read books today is by some fluke, me coming across a copy of Eugene Onegin, and devouring it (a first reading, that essentially lead nowhere, in terms of understanding the text, though I have returned to the book 5 times now).
If one hasn't read good books, or hasn't read challenging books, all they can go by, in terms of judging, or understanding books, is their experience with mediocre ones. Usually a reader will pick up on the basic patterns - readers of fantasy, for instance, will notice plot clichés and structural devices which are repeated over and over again, as will romance novel readers, etc. But will that help someone, when it comes to understanding a poem?
The question then comes down to whether understanding the poem is good or not. I would say it is - I think the poetry reader benefits more than the mediocre fiction reader, or the pornography magazine reader. But the point is, these skills transcend the act of reading too, and allow people to excel, no matter which field they work in.
Some people think English is a joke, but if you look at people, there are different levels of proficiency.
For instance, Yesterday, I received a comment from someone at a social gathering I attended, on the fact that I use too many big words, and unconventional language. In truth, my vocabulary isn't even that great, I just choose my words carefully to pack the most meaning. But the point is, someone was mocking me for being too brainy (ironically after bragging about her average in university no less!). If I wasn't myself, and another person, perhaps I would have lowered the bar, and reduced my vocabulary to the simplest vernacular. Avoid polysyllabic words, and long sentences all together. And what effect does that have? None other than someone suffering to fit in, someone reducing themselves, because society says it is "cooler" to do so.
Of course, I am older, and a smart *** enough to answer with a witty reply (with all the frills of a Polonius), but even then, what if I was, lets say, 11, and the person was twice my height, and reading Harry Potter. To what point would I feel comfortable saying Harry Potter is rubbish? I wouldn't. I would simply read it.
If the cool kids are reading something, everyone is reading something. If the cool kids where Nike Jordans, assume everyone is wearing them. Harry Potter is no different. The commercial success of the book isn't determined by the book, but by the book's sales. Literary criticism is the only way to determine the books worth in the long run.
To say "I enjoyed them", without having read, for instance, Anne of Green Gables, or for a more mature book, A Wizard of the Earthsea, or even more basic works, like those of Monica Hughes, who is by no means a fantastic author, but is a very encouraging one (I read about 10 of her books in my youth, she is particularly good in her depictions of female protagonists).
I see no reason why kids of 15 shouldn't be reading Jane Austen, and shouldn't be reading Pushkin, or Alice Munro, or Pablo Neruda, or Homer, or Tagore. They may not understand everything the first time, but the only way to grow is with challenge, and is with quality, and with guidance. I don't see any of that in the Potters, and I don't see anything particularly creative in the Potters. I see a dead end - a nowhere, one that saps all the markets time, all the bookshelf space, and all the advertisement. One that has been translated into countless languages and dialects, been stuck in every book store in every country. Why? The same reason why Pop music sells, and then is forgotten.
That's why I don't support
The common sentiment I get (mostly from people my own age and not 15 year olds - since I don't know any), is that they are just not interested in being challenged. This is not necessarily because they're stupid - they just lack the interest in literature. When I suggest some poems of Yeats to a friend of mine, he gave me the common answer of: "I don't really read/like poetry, because I don't understand it".Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
How do we combat that? This, to me, is the same as a person watching only romantic comedies or comic-book-hero movies and avoiding Citizen Kane or Casablanca. There is (as we all know) a large world of literature that exists that is absolutely fascinating, but the majority of people are either unaware of it or uninterested.
The problem isn't just education, it's seemingly ingrained in the culture.
Then would it be too far a stretch to blame bad literature for a lack of real interest in more difficult stuff, or too easy literature for a lack of interest in better stuff? The problem is the cycle - you have people who have read nothing but Harry Potter, Steven King, and a bunch of self help books as parents - what example does that set for the children? They will grow up reading the rubbish of the day, and not read, and not better their minds.
I see no problem with reading bad books, as long as you read good books too, but the point is, most people don't. Most people read only bad books, or no books, and quite frankly, they are the ones who suffer, since I have read the good books, and they haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I agree with you here mayneverhave 100% people are only to happy to stay with what they know or what they think they will understand or enjoy I am not sure what which it is. I have a policy with reading and most things that I will try anything once and while I don't always enjoy the books that I read or even sometimes understand them on the first read I always give them a go. Once you close your mind off to something it makes it easier to keep closing it off to other things that we think we may not like.
That being said I am a HP fan but I also like Austen and other Classic writers. (I have never tried poetry so I will give it a go I will start with Yeats) Why do I like books like HP? Well after a stressful and busy day at work I don't always like to come home and read something that I am going to have to think about I sometimes like to read a book just for the act of reading and enjoy the escapism.